Why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic?

[QED]

In the topic titled Why would God be interested in free lunches?
Harvey asks us:

What else is left once we've looked at every known possibility and we see this deep prejudice against a God solution? Folks, it's not as if everyone on earth is saying you must believe God exists. Rather, the issue is why be an atheist if you can be an agnostic?

This is easy for me to answer; I see too much Irony and Pathos in the world for it to be under the direction of the entity worshipped by the faithful. Their very faith is testimony to the unequivocal existence of such a being who's existence is thoroughly ambiguous when all attempts to reason his existence are carefully considered. Now I agree that this much might indeed lead us to agnosticism but then there is plenty to tip this extremely fine balance in my view.

Principally I understand evolution by natural selection to be the force for the apparent design of all known life. Within this mechanism there is no latitude for divine whim or fancy, the "products" will be restricted to what is practical in the widest possible context taking into account a near infinite number of contingent events spanning billions of years. While some might suggest that God enjoys a challenge, it strikes me as absurd to imagine that everything could be rigged so as to eventually result in a nice race of people who perfectly reflect God's image. The methods and imperatives for reaching this exalted state are just too bloody for the ends to be justified by the means in my opinion.

This is why I mention Irony and Pathos because the ungodly ordeals faced by all living things including man are often too awful to permit the kind of God commonly posited. After all, if I were looking for somewhere peaceful to go on holiday shouldn't I be safe going to the "Holy Lands"? If we look at the predictions of a universe under God's direction versus those of a universe which is self-extracting then I can see a clear indication that it is of the latter in nature.

= Atheism.

[Goat]

Persnickety Platypus: "That (pack of unpleasantries) might work as evidence against a loving god, but certainly not against a god taken at face value (a supreme being)."

You have a point. I was just assuming that the God under discussion was the one whose press releases describe as All Knowing, All Loving, All Wise... All Et Cetera & So Forth.

Come to think of it, maybe assuming an All Borderline Diety would explain the current State Of Affairs.

Anyone remember who said "The best that can be said about god is that he's basically an underachiever."?

Sound like a bit of Jewish Humor

A man brings some very fine material to a tailor and asks him to make a pair of pants. When he comes back a week later, the pants are not ready. Two weeks later, they still are not ready. Finally, after six weeks, the pants are ready. The man tries them on. They fit perfectly. Nonetheless, when it comes time to pay, he can't resist a jibe at the tailor.



"You know," he says, "it took God only six days to make the world. And it took you six weeks to make just one pair of pants."



"Ah," the tailor says. "But look at this pair of pants, and look at the world!"

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I do not believe in god. That is the same thing as a saying I lack belief in god, that I have no belief in god or saying I have an absence of belief in god. I will not, however, make the statement that god cannot exist.

Now that I look back on it, I realize that I did not word my question correctly.

One last try. Do you believe that there is no God?

Technically, you are a weak atheist, as am I, though I use the more descriptive term 'implicit atheist'. If we both describe what we believe they are very similar, from what you have described you believe and what I know I believe. The only difference is what we call it. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

I do not believe in God. However, I also do not believe in his nonexistence, which is what keeps me from atheism.

[Galphanore]

I do not believe in god. That is the same thing as a saying I lack belief in god, that I have no belief in god or saying I have an absence of belief in god. I will not, however, make the statement that god cannot exist.

Now that I look back on it, I realize that I did not word my question correctly.

One last try. Do you believe that there is no God?

No, as I have said a half dozen times I am not an explicit atheist.

Technically, you are a weak atheist, as am I, though I use the more descriptive term 'implicit atheist'. If we both describe what we believe they are very similar, from what you have described you believe and what I know I believe. The only difference is what we call it. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

I do not believe in God. However, I also do not believe in his nonexistence, which is what keeps me from atheism.

No, that is what keeps you and I both from Explicit Atheism.

• Atheism : Lack of belief in god.
• Implicit Atheism : Having no belief in god.
• Explicit Atheism : Having the belief that there is no god.
• Agnosticism : Having the belief that we cannot know something

[The Persnickety Platypus]

I have looked in every dictionary I own, and cannot find justification for your claims of "implicit" atheism.

Webster's defines atheism as "the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist." Nothing more, nothing less.

You can call yourself what you want, but as long as we are speaking contemporary English, you are not a dictonary atheist by any stretch of the imagination. Embrace your Agnosticism.


The reasoning behind all of this is one of faith. The religious are often criticized (for good reason) regarding their belief without evidence. However, an atheist (exclusively those who would be willing to make the statement "I believe that there is no God") encounters the same problem, given that there is no empirical evidence to be found that might justify an explicit denial of God.

In this regard, is atheism not just as irrational as religion? Is a faith that there is no God any more reasonable than a faith that there *is* a God?

[Galphanore]

I have looked in every dictionary I own, and cannot find justification for your claims of "implicit" atheism.

Webster's defines atheism as "the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist." Nothing more, nothing less.

You can call yourself what you want, but as long as we are speaking contemporary English, you are not a dictonary atheist by any stretch of the imagination. Embrace your Agnosticism.

The reasoning behind all of this is one of faith. The religious are often criticized (for good reason) regarding their belief without evidence. However, an atheist (exclusively those who would be willing to make the statement "I believe that there is no God") encounters the same problem, given that there is no empirical evidence to be found that might justify an explicit denial of God.

In this regard, is atheism not just as irrational as religion? Is a faith that there is no God any more reasonable than a faith that there *is* a God?

From websters.com :
a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun

• the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
• disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.

• Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
• The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

atheism
n

• the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
• a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

disbelief
n

• doubt about the truth of something [syn: incredulity, skepticism, mental rejection]
• a rejection of belief [syn: unbelief] [ant: belief]

Which of us is denying the dictionary definition again? Maybe you just need to buy updated dictionaries. Embrace your atheism my Monotreme friend.

[skepticFromTX]

We should convene a Synod of implicit and explicit athiests, both weak and robust. We should also invite agnostics, skeptics, and assorted contrarians to work out exactly what it is we all don't believe and the extent to which we don't believe it. It'll give us a chance to come up with something we all don't believe in. Maybe even issue some sort of Athiests Creed.

[Galphanore]

We should convene a Synod of implicit and explicit athiests[sic], both weak and robust. We should also invite agnostics, skeptics, and assorted contrarians to work out exactly what it is we all don't believe and the extent to which we don't believe it. It'll give us a chance to come up with something we all don't believe in. Maybe even issue some sort of Athiests[sic] Creed.

Most of that is pretty much what this thread has turned into, but an Atheist's Creed wouldn't really be possible because there are so many different kinds. An Atheist is really just anyone who doesn't believe in god.

[Confused]

I do not believe in god. That is the same thing as a saying I lack belief in god, that I have no belief in god or saying I have an absence of belief in god. I will not, however, make the statement that god cannot exist.

Now that I look back on it, I realize that I did not word my question correctly.

One last try. Do you believe that there is no God?

No, as I have said a half dozen times I am not an explicit atheist.

Technically, you are a weak atheist, as am I, though I use the more descriptive term 'implicit atheist'. If we both describe what we believe they are very similar, from what you have described you believe and what I know I believe. The only difference is what we call it. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

I do not believe in God. However, I also do not believe in his nonexistence, which is what keeps me from atheism.

No, that is what keeps you and I both from Explicit Atheism.

• Atheism : Lack of belief in god.
• Implicit Atheism : Having no belief in god.
• Explicit Atheism : Having the belief that there is no god.
• Agnosticism : Having the belief that we cannot know something

Though I know we have been down this on another thread, I find the breakdown here a bit difficult to use. I understand the precise definitions you are using, but the problem is that they are so concise that there are many who don't fit any of the criteria. I doubt there exists a God. I have seen no proof for one. But I do believe that we can know if one exists. It just takes time, research, and advancement of technology. I don't think anything exists that cannot be known with enough time and enough resources. So I can't actually claim agnosticism, if I claim explicit atheism then I leave myself so close minded that I can't see without biases of my beliefs unless they are built on 100% rationality (how many can claim 100%). My belief is based on a fallacy because I can neither prove nor disprove it at this time. To me it is like saying, well, right now I don't believe a God exists but I will leave myself open to change my mind if you can change my rationality. If I claim Implicit atheism, then I deny even considering the existence of a God. Who can claim this? I think the more you break it down, the more confusing it becomes.

[Galphanore]

I do not believe in god. That is the same thing as a saying I lack belief in god, that I have no belief in god or saying I have an absence of belief in god. I will not, however, make the statement that god cannot exist.

Now that I look back on it, I realize that I did not word my question correctly.

One last try. Do you believe that there is no God?

No, as I have said a half dozen times I am not an explicit atheist.

Technically, you are a weak atheist, as am I, though I use the more descriptive term 'implicit atheist'. If we both describe what we believe they are very similar, from what you have described you believe and what I know I believe. The only difference is what we call it. Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

I do not believe in God. However, I also do not believe in his nonexistence, which is what keeps me from atheism.

No, that is what keeps you and I both from Explicit Atheism.

• Atheism : Lack of belief in god.
• Implicit Atheism : Having no belief in god.
• Explicit Atheism : Having the belief that there is no god.
• Agnosticism : Having the belief that we cannot know something

Though I know we have been down this on another thread, I find the breakdown here a bit difficult to use. I understand the precise definitions you are using, but the problem is that they are so concise that there are many who don't fit any of the criteria. I doubt there exists a God. I have seen no proof for one. But I do believe that we can know if one exists. It just takes time, research, and advancement of technology. I don't think anything exists that cannot be known with enough time and enough resources. So I can't actually claim agnosticism, if I claim explicit atheism then I leave myself so close minded that I can't see without biases of my beliefs unless they are built on 100% rationality (how many can claim 100%). My belief is based on a fallacy because I can neither prove nor disprove it at this time. To me it is like saying, well, right now I don't believe a God exists but I will leave myself open to change my mind if you can change my rationality. If I claim Implicit atheism, then I deny even considering the existence of a God. Who can claim this? I think the more you break it down, the more confusing it becomes.

Implicit atheism does not deny the consideration of further evidence about god, it is just the provisional lack of belief. Explicit atheism is the only kind that closes it's self to further evidence, because it is based upon faith, and if you hold a position by faith alone then it is very hard to change. Also, I'm really not sure you're an agnostic, because of the part of your post I bolded. Agnostics believe that we cannot know if god exists or not.

[Confused]

Confused:

I do believe that we can know if one exists. It just takes time, research, and advancement of technology.

Galphanore:

Also, I'm really not sure you're an agnostic, because of the part of your post I bolded. Agnostics believe that we cannot know if god exists or not.

And this is why I say the more narrow you make a definition, the less people will fit into the criteria. As we have discussed in other threads, I am not entirely sure what category I would fall under. At this moment I can say that the evidence doesn't support the existence of a God. By evidence, I refer to both logical reasoning via this site and personal experiences. But I can't say with 100% certainty that tomorrow, I wouldn't be proved wrong. But I do believe that with time and resources, this debate will be answered. Whether it be technology shows with certainty how life began or Christ returns for judgment day. Either way, eventually, an answer can be found. I find compelling reasons for denying the existence of a God. But I can't be sure enough to make that bold step into atheism. I am sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone here but a religous atheist and terms similar to them are oxymorons in my opinion (which counts for little, I realize this considering the source). They appear to be more like saying "well there is no God, but just in case there is then I have covered all bases". I know it isn't what is meant, but that appearance can be quite confusing.

I just don't thing narrowing general terms into specific terms does anything more than exclude more than define more.